Darkcobra,

I support specific issue testing to the extent that it is performed with a concealed information test.  I do not support the use of any of the lie detection formats (PLCQT, DLCQT, or RI) for any purpose or application (specific issue testing or screening).  You are correct about the similarity of my views and those of David Lykken.  I have a great deal of admiration and respect for him and have been privileged to have personally known and interacted with him for more than two decades.  I believe that his views about polygraphy were correct almost half a century ago when first expressed/published and are equally correct today.  I'm glad that you feel our exchanges have been worthwhile and, of course, would be happy to discuss research and other issues in the future.  Best Wishes....

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 7:25am:


Cobra,

With all due respect, I didn't inquire whether you taught a polygraph course to examinees prior to the so -called testing procedure. I asked you if you informed them of the BASIC CONCEPT behind the control question format.  Anyone could easily understand it in a matter of minutes--much less time than examiners spend trying to convince examinees that they care about controls. You said yourself that knowledge is not a bad thing--why not impart examinees with it, since as you say it doesn't hamper the testing? How do you handle a test if an examinee admits to knowledge? Do you still conduct a so-called stim test? How do you get around the so-called controls?  Are you honestly saying that it makes no difference whether an examinee has prior knowledge? Knowledge changes the dynamics of the situation. Polygraphs are nothing but a tool to ellicit confessions and if the examinee is not willing to give up the info., they are worthless. If an examinee knows that they don't really detect lies as myth has it, then they won't react and they also won't fess up. They'll just sit back and laugh to themselves at the stupid charade.

Darkcobra,

A Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is an information-based test.  Lie detection includes a group of emotion-based procedures.  Polygraph Screening  (by its very nature) is an absence of information procedure, i.e., a fishing expedition.  You the examiner do not  (by the very nature of the exam) know whether a crime or some prohibited behavior has occurred let alone let alone that your examinee is the one who has committed/performed it.  A Peak of Tension Test (POT) to the first approximation is a poorly constructed Guilty Knowledge Test and as you allude to a poorly named exam as well.  It like the GKT, it is putatively an information-based exam; any emotion (tension) involved is merely an artifact of using a standard autonomic-channel-based polygraph (one of several reasons for using CNS measures for concealed information tests), not the parameter (concealed information) which is theoretically being measured.  But again, a GKT is an information-based exam (you the examiner via the investigator and the guilty examinee must both have access to the privileged information you seek to probe for.)  A screening exam is a lack of information exam, has no theoretical basis for practice, and has nothing in common with or anyway benefits from some artificial linking with a GKT exam.  And to end on the general theme of our recent exchanges, neither you nor your colleagues in the federal community can fix or make better a screening exam.  Polygraph screening can only be made better through abandonment and resource redirection and redistribution.   If you seek to make your polygraph program better and it now includes polygraph screening, perhaps no one thing that you and your colleagues could do to improve it would do so more than eliminating its polygraph screening component.   

Darkcobra,

I would be more than disappointed at this stage of our conversation to learn that you do not understand the difference between concealed information testing and lie detection.  Tell me it is not so.  Your last note leaves it very much in doubt.   In the simplest analysis, the former has a sound basis for practice; the latter does not.  The fact that a standard polygraph can be used for both is irrelevant.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 2:11am:


I am using DarkCorbra owns words, and I will give him credit for at least being an atypical examiner. But this is exactly the point why this web site exists. I will concede that a danger of this information on this web site poses an ethical dilemma when criminals can use it, and beat the polygrapher. But its a risk that those who believe in fairness must endure. Just one false positive to an innocent is wrong, PERIOD.  This web sites information removes the fear, the unknowns and the anxiety. And from my own emperical tests, know that with the removal of the fear, the polygraph is just a line drawing machine. Because the examiner, whether its you DarkCobra or another examiner,you can not read my mind, and you can't beat the knowlege and the montra going on in my head .... this thing does not work, its a lie. 
A disciplined mind will negate the use of any physical countermeasures. And using the physical type countermeasures is a recipe for failure. As I am sure that as this knowlege spreads, you and your examiner brethern are testing to see if you can detect the better and less detectable countermeasures. I know I would in your shoes. 
Still the bottom line, Knowlege is power, and with the removal of the fear and anxiety.  The best you will get is a "NO" No Opinion, or stalemate in Chess. THe best outcome is "NDI", and walking out knowing that its checkmate.  But you might get a youngpup to cough up the info that he gleaned from here, but that is inexperience on that persons part. Again Experience is the difference.  Happy Hunting   

Darkcobra,

Neither you nor I have any way of fixing polygraph screening--it is a fatally flawed practice, causes irreparable damage to country and individual alike and should be immediately discontinued.  The flip-of-a-coin probability of success ("uncovers deception and verifies truth") with a binomial determination in no way compensates for the horror associated with ongoing daily failure.  The only way I can see current methodology having a widespread social benefit would be to have a lottery for which of your various colleague’s number comes up next, i.e., for the next polygrapher to be revealed in a major screw up that is picked up by the national media.  The winnings from this lottery would be donated to the Katrina fund (or the like) in the revealed dupe’s name.  Quite seriously-you do appear to be more caring than many of your colleagues, but you share their culpability and stain if you continue in this practice.  The only thing you can hope for is that your mistakes remain local mistakes and do not reach the level of national notoriety and embarrassment that we witness on a regular basis.  As I recall, you are not a federal examiner.  As such you are somewhat protected from this occurence, but at the same time you are disadvantaged with the aforementioned lottery.    You suggest that my research has some bearing on polygraph screening.  If you believe this you are quite mistaken.  I would have nothing whatsoever to do with this activity and in fact, other than opposing it and educating others about it, have little to do with current lie detection methodology.  My research and operational involvement deal exclusively with concealed information testing.

Darkcobra,

That which I would have you and your colleagues do is rather quite simple.  Cease and desist from doing polygraph screening.  It is a fishing expedition with no present or probable theoretical basis for practice.  It is further a danger to the national security (several recent well publicized examples) and to individuals alike.  Use the saved resources (time, money, manpower) to conduct serious investigations to augment concealed information material for your specific incident testing.  I maintain steadfastly that which I said to you in my previous post--a "test" whose foundation rests upon (examinee) ignorance is radically impacted by knowledge and truth.  Regards...

Darkcobra,

You write in part:
Quote:


I'm sorry to have to differ on this point, but I can hardly imagine the self-contained snickering of a knowledgeable examinee not affecting your or a colleague's exam.  This examinee would be one who recognizes (but does not reveal) what he/she has read about on this site, e.g., the misrepresentations about exam question types and purposes and the charade of the numbers test/acquaintance test as he manipulates you through this exercise, etc.  But then again, perhaps you disavow all that is listed for these readers to peruse in the Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Polygraph Exam (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf), yes?

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 4:51am:


Darkcobra,
Are you saying it's better to polygraph someone who understands the concept behind the procedure? Do you believe that prior knowledge w/o countermeasures reduces the chance of false positives? Do you inform your examinees about the concept behind the polygraph before administering it? If polygraphs don't depend on ignorance, then why are examinees not informed about the concept behind them beforehand?

Cobra,

Would you not agree that examinee knowledge of the poly affects the testing procedure? I had no prior knowledge when I took mine, so I believed that all the questions mattered to the examiner/agency and that the poly was practically infallible. However, once an examinee knows the diffference between controls and relevants, the game changes completely. Why would an examinee be concerned enough to react to questions he knows the examiner doesn't care about? Also, what about the use of fear during the poly? An informed examinee would be familiar with the importance of its use during the procedure. Polygraphs depend on ignorance. Knowledge changes everything. Surely you must acknowledge this.

A sidebar:

   Being American-born of Asian descent I applied for LAPD back in the mid 90's.   Went all the way up to the interview process, but everything stopped after my last job working with people I didn't always agree with.  Well, they did not consider me Asian because my fluency was in English and Spanish but weak in my actual (chinese) language.   So I was considered white, because I couldn't speak a chinese language.   I guess at that time the Asian community never sued the LAPD.  So beware of the LAPD usage of what they consider a minority.    As far as I know now, I am really white, even though I look Asian and I think now my parents must have adopted me!

atomic84 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2005 at 1:32am:


A listing of the questions asked on the LAPD pre-employment polygraph is now available. See the discussion thread, LAPD Polygraph Questions Disclosed.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 4:59pm:

Perhaps it is just me, but I find this interesting in and of itself.

I recall many posts on this board by polygraph examiners which assert that examinee knowledge of the polygraph procedure is irrelevant – even a knowledgeable subject can be accurately polygraphed.   

I cannot think of any scientific test where knowledge of the testing procedure would possibly invalidate the test.  I also cannot think of any reason for the APA’s prohibition except to prevent knowledge of the testing procedure from becoming available to the public.

I would guess that in cases like Ed Gelb on the TV show, the ground rules were laid down in advance as to what would be shown and what would not, and that is why it was apparently acceptable to the APA.

Is Ed Gelb a member of the APA?  I ask becuase he publicly displays polygraphy on the television program "Lie Detector."

darkcobra2005 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 4:59pm:


I could find no such prohibition in the American Polygraph Association's bylaws. Might you be mistaken about this?

Jeffery wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 3:24pm:


Jeffery,
It does seem that the argument is a bit circular:  The polygraph is accurate because we know it’s accurate because we polygraph people and sometimes they admit to things.  In other words, the anecdotal evidence submitted by the polygraph examiners themselves in which they relate their success stories in catching liars with the polygraph proves that the polygraph is useful and accurate.

The next logical question would be: Is there any anecdotal evidence suggesting the polygraph is not useful and accurate?  The answer, of course, is “Yes!”  The stories of many of the people on this board would qualify, as well as the stories of many, many other people who have been labeled “deceptive” despite an utter lack of actual deception.

What is it that makes the anecdotal evidence of the polygraph examiners, who after all have a vested interest in the polygraph’s continuing use, more valid than the anecdotal evidence submitted by people like myself?  I have no idea.   

Other than the fact that I believe it is an injustice to use such a flawed process which does not really determine truthfulness or deception, I have no real personal stake in getting the polygraph thrown out.  I have already (luckily) passed one and gotten the job I was seeking.   

Looking at it objectively, I would think that an account like mine would hold much more weight than the account of any polygraph examiner, simply because of the lack of personal consequences to me if the polygraph continues as it is or is banned from use.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 6:34am:


"The old research was bad, but now the new research is good. Trust me."

Is that basically the argument you are making?  For a profession that professes to be after the truth, this is pretty poor.

DarkCobra, why donn't you engage in your own research and take Dr. Richardson's challenge.

nonombre wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 5:01am:


So what I am hearing is there is no good way to scientifically validate polygraphics, but we (society) rely on bogus or (the best hand we got) scientific studies to back up a process that has hurt the lives of untold thousands.   

Sure, you can engage in self-congratulation for the hundreds of crooks you may have caught through bluffing them into confessions during a polygraph interrogation.  You may have brought these bad guys to justice, helping the lives of their innocent victims.

But the people falsly accused and whose lives were damaged due to bogus polygraph tests were innocent too.

Darkcobra wrote:
Quote:


Nice to see you back.  It's been a while since we've talked.

I think you are correct in your assertation that all research can be skewed.  The ATSM has established standards for testing in many areas.  Why, though, would research on the part of the ATSM outweigh that of the NAS?  Both are recognized and respected organizations.  Again, I think it falls to the question of which research project benefits the ones who are looking for the benefit?  As you are aware very little research has been conducted regarding employment screening polygraph examinations.  The reason is that ground truth cannot be established without admission on the part of the examinee.  That ground truth can be questionable as well.  As pointed out by respected scholars such as Dr. Lykken, employment screen accuracy cannot be directly correlated to specific incident accuracy...two different fruits because of the lack of or inclusions of ground truth.  Until research can prove otherwise, I think it unjust to continue the pre-employment screens.

Also, the other matter which we discussed at length has come to a conclusion.  I cannot say that I am satisfied with the result, but it is what it is.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 2:11am:


Darkcobra2005,

Specifically which paragraph of the APA standards prohibits a member from accepting Dr. Richardson's challenge?

You suggest that no meaningful analog (laboratory) test of a polygrapher's ability to detect countermeasures can be constructed. I disagree with that notion. Charles Honts has conducted experiments along these lines and published his results in peer-reviewed journals. His results indicated that even experienced polygraphers could not detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.

I think it is abundantly clear to the neutral observer why not even one of the 3,000+ polygraphers operating in the United States has accepted Dr. Richardson's challenge.

Quote:


The fact that you have accused examinees of countermeasure use and received admissions does not establish your ability to actually detect countermeasures. (By detection I mean identification at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.)

How many of those whom you have accused of countermeasure use, and who made no admission, were in fact innocent of such? You have no way of knowing.

How many of those whose charts you scored as "no deception indicated" in fact used countermeasures to pass (whether or not they answered the relevant questions truthfully)? Again, you have no way of knowing.

Considering the absence of any research evidence whatsoever suggesting that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures, the fact that polygraph screening is without scientific basis, and that many law enforcement agencies, including the LAPD, have pre-employment polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%, I think many applicants will conclude that using countermeasures to avert a false positive outcome is a reasonable survival strategy.

Quote:


I don't take any offense at your arguments, and hope you take none at mine, either. But please understand that the unfair treatment I have experienced as a result of polygraph screening stems from the inherent unreliability of polygraphy. I have no evidence that my FBI and LAPD polygraphers engaged in any willfull misconduct. Had you conducted my polygraph examinations, the results may very well have been the same.

If you don't want to cause others the kind of harm that I, Sergeant1107, mustbaliar, and many other truthful individuals have experienced, you need to follow the example of FBI Special Agent Leroy Chan and get out of the business of polygraph screening.

Nonombre,

This would seem to go back to the specific issue versus screening examinations argument.  At least with the lab experiements there is some base known truth at hand.  With the screening exams there is not such a luxury.  For the false-positive examinee there is no way to disprove what cannot be legitimately proven.  In contrast there is no way for the examiner to disprove what has been proven by a false-negative examinee, at least not by the polygraph.  With lab tests and real-life specific issue tests a bit more can possibly be proven due to ground truth having been established.

I think it all goes back to the utility versus validity argument.  Do polygraph examinations have utility?  You bet.  Do they have validity?  Well I guess that depends on whose opinion you seek and what research you trust by looking at the motivations behind the research and the researchers themselves.

Jeffery wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 3:26am:



Jeff,

You have identified the most significant problem in laboratory polygraph research.  In many cases, the researchers do try to make the mock crime "real" to the participants (In one study, the Isrealis actually convinced some police recruits they had in fact commited a real crime, and if caught on the polygraph were going to get thrown out of the police acadamy.)

However, in the U.S. we cannot go to the extremes they can in other countries (These are called "human use" issues.) So, we use other methods like financial awards, etc.   It is not the best possible approach, but sometimes you do the best you can with the hand you draw, so to speak

Regards,

Nonombre

darkcobra2005 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 2:11am:


Could you comment on the so called "mock crime simulated tests" that the DOD conducted to bolster their claims of polygraph accuracy?

If there is no substantial fear of being caught, there is no reaction, as you indicated above.  I'd lie to see what "fear" can be manufactured in a "mock crime" scenario.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2005 at 5:22pm:


Your assertion that countermeasures are being detected on a regular basis is unsupported by any peer-reviewed research, and undermined by the fact that in some three-and-a-half years, no polygrapher, including yourself, I must respectfully add, has mustered the self-confidence to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge.

On the other hand, not using countermeasures is no guarantee that one won't be accused of using countermeasures. That was my experience with the LAPD (the agency with which atomic84 is applying). Ervin Youngblood, a senior polygraph operator still with the LAPD, angrily but falsely accused me of using countermeasures. Not only had I not used countermeasures, I didn't even know what they were at that time.

I wish it were true, as you suggest, that being informed about polygraphy and having read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector -- or more precisely, admitting the same to one's polygraph examiner -- would never result in retaliation against an examinee. But feedback received by AntiPolygraph.org strongly suggests that at least in some cases (if not most), it can and does.

I also wish it were true, as you maintain, that if one simply were to answer the "control" questions untruthfully while answering the relevant questions truthfully, one would be assured of passing the polygraph. If this were true, then AntiPolygraph.org's advice to law enforcement applicants hoping to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome would be precisely this -- and nothing more. But your assurances, I am afraid, are little more than wishful thinking on your part.

mustbaliar wrote on Aug 15^th, 2005 at 7:16pm:


I can vividly remember points from my polygraphs as well.  One of the things that stand out the most from all of them is the way each examiner solemnly assured me that they were the true “lie detectors” and that even without the machine they could easily tell that I was lying.  That must be something they are taught in school – all three of them used the same line on me.

I’m sure that when people actually are lying then a statement like that makes the examiner seem mysteriously omniscient.  However, in my case, when the examiners assured me they could, through their powers of observation, easily tell I was lying when I was in fact telling the truth, it was utterly baffling to me.  

As I mentioned, at the time I had faith in the accuracy of the polygraph, because I had never heard anything negative about it.  I was absolutely floored by this person I had assumed was an honest, ethical professional looking right into my eyes and telling me he KNEW I was lying and I might as well admit it.  I couldn't believe such a mistake was being made.   

Looking back at it now, I am not sure what to think about the examiners.  I’d like to think they were ethical people doing their best to find deceptive applicants, but it’s hard for me to believe that.